Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:Just wondering, why is the Klansman's profile still intact?

Why wouldn't it be?

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

The admin staff has a policy of automatically deleting accounts with questionable URLs. This includes sexual content, violent content, drug sites, search engines, employment sites, and pretty much anything that looks like an indicator that you're a spammer.

I figured "explicitly racist" probably would go into that list as well.

The admin staff has a policy of automatically deleting accounts with questionable URLs. This includes sexual content, violent content, drug sites, search engines, employment sites, and pretty much anything that looks like an indicator that you're a spammer.

I figured "explicitly racist" probably would go into that list as well.

Almighty Doer of Stuff wrote:Yes. I don't believe in absolute freedom of expression.

wait....Let me get this straight...
You would like it if there was a group of "higher-ups", or "thought-moderators", to prescreen ideas for us, and only allow us to be confronted with words/ideas they deem us to be capable of handling for ourselves?.....

A nice, safe blanketed world where all the unpleasant-sounding people have been silenced, so you don't have to think for yourself anymore about what is right and wrong?

Because if that is the type of environment you want, I could send you url's to several overmoderated forums on the www, (which I am no longer allowed to post on, btw.), on which a core of drama-seekers delights in complaining of "offendedness" to the mods about one other' posts, at which point the mods puff themself up with feelings of importance by threatening/deleting/editing/banning.

No. I simply believe that, while we should have a very liberal policy of freedom of expression on a governmental level, private, opt-in institutions should have the ability to restrict freedoms on their private property to a certain extent.

Bobby Henderson wrote:As for free speech, there are three types of comments that I sometimes donâ€™t approve.

(1) Hate speech against someone other than me or the church of the FSM. Today there was a comment saying all Christians should be shot - thatâ€™s an example of something I wonâ€™t publish here. But, if it had said â€œBobby Henderson should be shotâ€, I would have approved it (and probably given it its own post).

A lot of this is in the context. If you want to make a point that many will find extremely offensive, you need to do it in a way that doesnâ€™t make you sound like a crazy bitter sociopath; itâ€™s not â€œAll Christians should die!!â€. Those comments do nothing to help anyone. Some comments have no purpose other than to be offensive, and those are the ones that get axed. Not so much because theyâ€™re offensive, but because theyâ€™re ONLY offensive. (Offensive but hilarious is something entirely different. As long as there is something other than just offense, really.)

Weâ€™re doing something important. We donâ€™t want a state-sponsored religion, we donâ€™t want religion in politics or public schools. We reject dogma and all the evil done its name. This is a not a popular point of view in a culture where faith is considered a virtue. It is extremely important that we hold ourselves to a higher standard than those who oppose us. Context is everything. You can get away with a lot if you put it in the right context.

I had assumed this would extend to the message board as well. The sole purpose of the Ku Klux Klan is to spread hatred. Furthermore, the guy posted just enough to get his profile noticed and then left.

But you (and others) began rumbling immediately upon his registration that he should be axed, simply because he appears to be part of a white-supremacy organization.

He did not post any hate speech or inflamatory propaganda.

Yet your question was, "Why hasn't he been removed?"

Sounds dangerously close to censorship-of-ideas to me.

The passage you quoted by this site's founder does not say that people who ascribe to disagreeable beliefs are unwelcome, but merely that their posts will be removed if those particular ones are offensive without any redeeming virtue.

Check your head, brother....Censorship in the name of PC is even more objectionable than censorship for blatant fascist logic, because the people who are doing the editing believe themselves righteous beyond question...At least fascists are obvious people-users, therefore the censorship retains its honest stink.

ken worley wrote:But you (and others) began rumbling immediately upon his registration that he should be axed, simply because he appears to be part of a white-supremacy organization.

Lies. My post in this thread was my first on the subject. Only MPTrooper actually commented on it.

He did not post any hate speech or inflamatory propaganda.

Yet your question was, "Why hasn't he been removed?"

Lies. My question was "[W]hy is the Klansman's profile still intact?"

Sounds dangerously close to censorship-of-ideas to me.

The passage you quoted by this site's founder does not say that people who ascribe to disagreeable beliefs are unwelcome, but merely that their posts will be removed if those particular ones are offensive without any redeeming virtue.

Every post the account makes is directly linked to the profile (although I admit I was hasty in that I went by what MPT said before checking to see if the site was still up, although for all I know it could be a server problem and it will be up tomorrow). The profile can be edited without damaging any of the content of his posts.

Check your head, brother....Censorship in the name of PC is even more objectionable than censorship for blatant fascist logic, because the people who are doing the editing believe themselves righteous beyond question...At least fascists are obvious people-users, therefore the censorship retains its honest stink.

"Censorship in the name of PC" is saying we can't call black people "water buffalo" when they're in large, noisy groups in the early hours of the morning. The KKK's sole, one-and-only purpose is, as I said, to spread fear and hatred of minorities. The difference is between calling someone a nigger because they're black and calling for someone's expulsion from the country, if not death, because they're black.

At any rate, on this site Bobby Henderson's edicts are beyond question because this is his website. He hasn't actually commented on this specific issue, but we could email him if you like.

ken worley wrote:But you (and others) began rumbling immediately upon his registration that he should be axed, simply because he appears to be part of a white-supremacy organization.

Lies. My post in this thread was my first on the subject. Only MPTrooper actually commented on it.

He did not post any hate speech or inflamatory propaganda.

Yet your question was, "Why hasn't he been removed?"

Lies. My question was "[W]hy is the Klansman's profile still intact?"

You are mostly right on this score...my mistake...My apologies for the misquote.(Your characterization of my oversight as "lies" implies it was done a'purpose, though, which is dishonest, as I think you well realize I have no gain in "smearing you", or whatever...So they were mitaken impressions, not "lies".)

I wrote:The passage you quoted by this site's founder does not say that people who ascribe to disagreeable beliefs are unwelcome, but merely that their posts will be removed if those particular ones are offensive without any redeeming virtue.

ados wrote:Every post the account makes is directly linked to the profile (although I admit I was hasty in that I went by what MPT said before checking to see if the site was still up, although for all I know it could be a server problem and it will be up tomorrow). The profile can be edited without damaging any of the content of his posts.

So?...Is anyone forcing you to click the link in the profile?If you do click the link, are you so impressionable that you must believe what is written there?Or are you just saying that you believe the rest of us are?(And need protection from our own weakness?)

I wrote:Check your head, brother....Censorship in the name of PC is even more objectionable than censorship for blatant fascist logic, because the people who are doing the editing believe themselves righteous beyond question...At least fascists are obvious people-users, therefore the censorship retains its honest stink.

ados wrote:"Censorship in the name of PC" is saying we can't call black people "water buffalo" when they're in large, noisy groups in the early hours of the morning. The KKK's sole, one-and-only purpose is, as I said, to spread fear and hatred of minorities. The difference is between calling someone a nigger because they're black and calling for someone's expulsion from the country, if not death, because they're black.

Once again, I submit that if someone is spouting such idiocy, the only sane thing is to let them have their say publicly, and allow the ridicule and mockery of their weak ideas to be likewise visible...People are smart enough to see what is wrong with racist dogma.

By censoring it, you only color it with an aura of power it does not deserve.

ados wrote:At any rate, on this site Bobby Henderson's edicts are beyond question because this is his website. He hasn't actually commented on this specific issue, but we could email him if you like.

This sounds unnecesarily confrontational and juvenile, so I will refrain from responding to it.

To my eyes, a pretty transparent display of anger. I will take this anger as an admission that you realize that you were wrong in thinking that admins ahould have banned him/edited his profile/or whatever other step you feel they were lax in, prompting you to post in this thread.

I hope you are realizing that this debate is giving that guy more attention than he ever received on his own at this site.

The member posted nothing offensive, and a quick examination of the site showed it was brand new, had roughly 6 hits to it, and while it claimed association with the KKK, had no actually offensive material on it, nor any links to more offensive material. It looked quickly thrown together, and not at all serious.

As had already been observed, this member posted just enough to get noticed and then disappeared. He was hoping to cause a ruckus with the moderation staff and membership by posting a bogus sight he had thrown together just for that purpose, and until now, failed miserably.

Had he actually posted anything problematic, or had we received any complaints from members regarding his behavior, action would have been taken, but this forum does not reject people simply for association with distasteful groups.

So how much more free publicity do you want to give this guy?

True terror lies in the futility of human existence.

Malcolm Reynolds is my co-pilot.

"The only freedom deserving the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental and spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest." - John Stuart Mill

To my eyes, a pretty transparent display of anger. I will take this anger as an admission that you realize that you were wrong in thinking that admins ahould have banned him/edited his profile/or whatever other step you feel they were lax in, prompting you to post in this thread.

That was not such an admission, and it's unreasonable to think it was!

The "stinky, poopooheaded ninny" comment may have been an ironic, self-degrading sort of way to say something along those lines, however.

I still stand by my position on private organizations' right to restrict freedom of speech on their properties, provided that it's an opt-in situation with the possibility of opting back out, however. It may not apply in this case, but I still think it stands.